Determinants of farmers’ decision-making behavior for black soil protection in Northeast China—A case of Jilin Province*

Xu Sun; Rui Yan; Ling Zhao; Yunxian Yan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339285

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2025
7 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Ying Ma, Editor Dear Dr. Ling, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ying Ma, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This work was supported by The Education Department of Jilin Province (JJKH20250609BS).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 7. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 8. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 9. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** Reviewer #1: Determinants of Farmers' Decision-Making Behaviour for Black Soil Protection in Northeast China — A Case of Jilin Province The topic is relevant because black soil degradation in China is a critical environmental problem with significant implications for food security. The paper attempts to adapt the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to analyse farmers' decision-making behaviour. I suggest some revisions before considering it for publication: 1. The research questions are not clearly formalised: they do not emerge explicitly in either the introduction or the objectives section. It is essential to make them clear, explicit and testable, especially since this is an SEM model. 2. The originality is only partial. The application of TPB to agricultural behaviour is now widespread: there is no strong justification for the innovative contribution compared to the extensive existing literature. 3. The literature is largely self-referential and not up to date with recent contributions on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices at the international level. 4. The limitations of the TPB are not critically discussed, for example, the lack of attention to the institutional context and structural inequalities. 5. The use of SEM is technically appropriate for testing models with latent variables and multiple relationships. Reliability (Cronbach's α), convergent validity (AVE) and discriminant validity tests are correctly implemented. However, the sampling process is weak and it is not explained transparently how the 486 farmers were selected. Recruitment via online platforms does not guarantee representativeness. 6. The justification for the study area (Jilin) is broad but poorly connected to theoretical or comparative reasoning. There is no reflection on how generalisable the results are outside this context. 7. The SEM formulas are reported correctly, but the text does not clearly illustrate how the standardised weights were interpreted. 8. The results are consistent with the TPB literature: behavioural intention mediates the effect of cognitive and normative variables on actual behaviour. However, the tables are numerous and redundant. The information on AVE, CR, and CFI could be better summarised. The figures are descriptive and do not add interpretative substance to the model. 9. The standardised estimates report limited effects: for example, the contribution of subjective norms is statistically weak (β=0.098). 10. There is a lack of sensitivity analysis or robustness testing of the model. 11. The discussion highlights the crucial role of training, institutional communication and economic incentives in promoting protective behaviour. However, this remains too general and lacks a real comparison with international literature or similar contexts (e.g. other countries with soil degradation problems). 12. Policy implications are stated but not supported by concrete scenarios or simulations. 13. Methodological limitations are only mentioned marginally (absence of causality, risk of bias in questionnaires, etc.), and future research developments are vague. Good work Reviewer #2: I would like to thank the journal's editorial team. The submitted manuscript has valuable contributions but requires some minor revisions before it can be accepted. Therefore, I would like to draw the authors' attention to the following points: Comment 1: Remove Cronbach’s alpha from Table 3. Comment 2: The lack of comparative analysis with findings from other related studies. It is necessary to discuss research that has obtained similar or contrasting results and explain the reasons for these similarities and differences. Comment 3: The following articles should be cited in the paper: Rastegari, H., Nooripoor, M., Sharifzadeh, M., & Petrescu, D. C. (2023). Drivers and barriers in farmers’ adoption of vermicomposting as keys for sustainable agricultural waste management. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 21(1), 2230826. Petrescu-Mag, R. M., Rastegari, H., Hartel, T., Reti, K. O., & Petrescu, D. C. (2025). Biocultural tourist experience in Romania’s High Nature Value rural landscape: Application of an extended Theory of Planned Behavior. PLoS One, 20(5), e0324444. ******** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Hamid Rastegari ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r001
Revision 1
2 Oct 2025 Author Response Response to the Reviewers’ Comments We thank the reviewers for taking the time to read and give their comprehensive and constructive comments, which have improved our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments and suggestions and how each one has been addressed in the revision. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments Comment 1. The research questions are not clearly formalised: they do not emerge explicitly in either the introduction or the objectives section. It is essential to make them clear, explicit and testable, especially since this is an SEM model. Response: We are sorry for the shortcomings in our previous manuscript. The bibliography recommended by reviewers is of great help to the manuscript and helps the author to have a deeper understanding of the existing research. In the abstract part, we have made some modifications, and at the same time, we have written the clear research questions of this paper in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction. Comment 2. The originality is only partial. The application of TPB to agricultural behaviour is now widespread: there is no strong justification for the innovative contribution compared to the extensive existing literature. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have made relevant modifications in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction of the article, which fully illustrates the innovation of this research. Comment 3. The literature is largely self-referential and not up to date with recent contributions on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices at the international level. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the third paragraph of our introduction, we added sustainable practices for black soil conservation in the United States and Ukraine. Comment 4. The limitations of the TPB are not critically discussed, for example, the lack of attention to the institutional context and structural inequalities. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the penultimate paragraph of the introduction, we have given a detailed answer to this question. Comment 5. The use of SEM is technically appropriate for testing models with latent variables and multiple relationships. Reliability (Cronbach's α), convergent validity (AVE) and discriminant validity tests are correctly implemented. However, the sampling process is weak and it is not explained transparently how the 486 farmers were selected. Recruitment via online platforms does not guarantee representativeness. Response: First of all, I would like to thank the reviewers for their approval of the model, and thank you for your questions. In response to your question, we detailed the extraction of the survey in the third paragraph of Materials and Methods in the article. Comment 6. The justification for the study area (Jilin) is broad but poorly connected to theoretical or comparative reasoning. There is no reflection on how generalisable the results are outside this context. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the third paragraph of Materials and Methods in the article, we focused on the reasons for selecting Jilin Province, because Jilin Province in China is a typical area for black soil protection, and the "pear tree model" is also promoted throughout the country. Comment 7. The SEM formulas are reported correctly, but the text does not clearly illustrate how the standardised weights were interpreted. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We illustrate the means and standard deviations of the selected variables in Table 2, and verify the reliability of the scale in the first paragraph of the results, which indicate good internal consistency. So no normalized weights are reported. Comment 8. The results are consistent with the TPB literature: behavioural intention mediates the effect of cognitive and normative variables on actual behaviour. However, the tables are numerous and redundant. The information on AVE, CR, and CFI could be better summarised. The figures are descriptive and do not add interpretative substance to the model. Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments and affirmation of the manuscript. What we want to explain is that the AVE, CR, and CFI you mentioned are not in the same table. In the structural equation model, CFI measures the fitting degree of the CFA model. AVE and CR will be calculated only on the premise that the fitting degree passes. AVE and CR test the convergence validity and combined reliability of each dimension of the scale, so we did not put the three indicators you mentioned in one table. Thank you for your understanding. Comment 9. The standardised estimates report limited effects: for example, the contribution of subjective norms is statistically weak (β=0.098). Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We explain the reasons for the weak significance of the subjective norm in the third paragraph in the SEM results and refer to three articles of literature. Comment 10. There is a lack of sensitivity analysis or robustness testing of the model. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We explain this in the last paragraph of our conclusion in the article, thank you for your understanding. Comment 11. The discussion highlights the crucial role of training, institutional communication and economic incentives in promoting protective behaviour. However, this remains too general and lacks a real comparison with international literature or similar contexts (e.g. other countries with soil degradation problems). Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the third paragraph of the introductory part of the article, we introduce the practices of black land protection in the United States and Ukraine. Comment 12. Policy implications are stated but not supported by concrete scenarios or simulations. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have made corresponding changes in the conclusions Comment 13. Methodological limitations are only mentioned marginally (absence of causality, risk of bias in questionnaires, etc.), and future research developments are vague. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We revised this in the conclusion part, and put forward the future research development. Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Comment 1: Remove Cronbach’s alpha from Table 3. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Changes have been made as you suggested. Comment 2: The lack of comparative analysis with findings from other related studies. It is necessary to discuss research that has obtained similar or contrasting results and explain the reasons for these similarities and differences. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. According to your question, we explain the reason why the subjective norm is weakly significant in the third paragraph of SEM results, and refer to three literatures. Comment 3: The following articles should be cited in the paper: Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have already referenced both articles in our article. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r002
27 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Ying Ma, Editor Dear Dr. Ling, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ying Ma, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been substantially improved, all major reviewer comments have been properly addressed, and the scientific contribution is now clear and robust. Only minor editorial refinements are needed before acceptance. I suggest a few minor revisions: In the introduction (lines 28–41), write, ‘As one of the three black soil areas in the northern hemisphere, north-eastern China is an important area for grain production... It takes 200–400 years to generate 1 cm of black soil’. I recommend separating the geographical part from the agronomic part. Lines 39-48: “However, due to long-term intensive use... improve overall food production capacity”. Here, three problems (“thin-lean-hard”) are described: a bulleted list or shorter sentences would be better. In Discussion/Interpretative results, lines 349–369: “Perceptual control of behaviour is a factor influencing behavioural intention... awareness of investment and use of funds for black soil protection (PBC3)”. Too dense: a summary and the use of specific references are suggested. Lines 382–389: “In general, attention should be paid to the mutual influence of farmers” cognition ... promoting farmers' participation in black soil protection.' This repeats the concept already expressed above (covariance of constructs). I recommend making the narrative more concise by reducing the descriptive geography, clarifying the novelty of applying TPB to black soil protection, and slightly expanding the limits (cross-causality, bias in self-reported practices). Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Giuseppe Timpanaro Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r003
Revision 2
30 Nov 2025 Author Response Response to the Reviewers’ Comments We thank the reviewers for taking the time to read and give their comprehensive and constructive comments, which have improved our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments and suggestions and how each one has been addressed in the revision. Response to Reviewer 1 Comments Comment 1. In the introduction (lines 28-41), write, 'As one of the three black soil areas in the northern hemisphere, north-eastern China is an important area for grain production… It takes 200-400 years to generate 1 cm of black soil’. I recommend separating the geographical part from the agronomic part. Response: We have made the changes as you suggested and thank you very much for your suggestions. We didn't separate before because we wanted to explain the importance of black soil in China. After all, China is a big agricultural country. At the same time, food production and land are inseparable. Comment 2. Lines 39-48: "However, due to long-term intensive use... improve overall food production capacity". Here, three problems ("thin-lean-hard") are described: a bulleted list or shorter sentences would be better. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have not revised your modification suggestion. First of all, we have briefly introduced it when explaining "thin-lean-hard", and each sentence cites the corresponding literature. The reason why we didn't make a table is that the current situation of black soil has undergone long-term changes, and not all these data are public. We can only find out the current situation of black soil. Please understand. Comment 3. In Discussion/Interpretative results, lines 349-369: "Perceptual control of behaviour is a factor influencing behavioural intention... awareness of investment and use of funds for black soil protection (PBC3)". Too dense: a summary and the use of specific references are suggested. Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised your suggestion, deleted some contents, and cited relevant literature. Comment 4. Lines 382-389: "in general, attention should be paid to the mutual influence of farmers" cognition. promoting farmers' participation in black soil protection.’ This repeats the concept already expressed above (covariance of constructs). Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. According to your suggestion, we have made modifications to supplement the novelty of the planned behavior theory for farmers' black soil protection behavior. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r004
2 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Ying Ma, Editor Determinants of Farmers' Decision-Making Behavior for Black Soil Protection in Northeast China --- A Case of Jilin Province PONE-D-25-21413R2 Dear Dr. Ling, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ying Ma, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ying Ma, Editor PONE-D-25-21413R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Ling, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ying Ma Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339285.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .